KCRag Forum

Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.

FangKC wrote:They really don't need to be adding much new retail space in that neighborhood anyway. There are plenty of older former retail buildings all around that block that just need to be remodeled.

Actually, more retail can be a good thing.

Bringing more space helps keep rent down and helps keep it from going up as demand in the area goes up with more customers.

It encourages landlords to renovate, they can't ignore the quality of space if they're in horrible shape next door to right new. ADA compliance at a new space when the old next door is grandfathered doesn't make the old place look good. If they're all that exists why would the owner bother? Sometimes places need to look bad to be encouraged to renovate.

It helps bring new amenities to the neighborhood. The required bike parking at a new infill project can be used for shops nearby too. A renovation may be grandfathered and not need to add bike parking.

It's the network effect working to improve the entire area.

I am not saying adding new retail is a bad thing. I am saying that it doesn't make a lot of sense to build more NEW structures with retail space in a neighborhood that has a lot of older, existing retail structures that aren't being used, or are underutilized. There are 30-35 structures within four blocks of 31st and Gillham that could be renovated or repurposed for retail.

It's a lot cheaper to create retail space by renovating existing former commercial buildings. It makes sense to use what we already have before building more expensive new space. Many of the buildings simply need to have the interiors updated, and perhaps a renovation of the facades. Use the existing buildings to see how much retail can florish BEFORE building more.

Yes, there are exceptions in the example of a CVS or Walgreen's drug store in that they have certain layout requirements. However, I don't see either of those chains opening a store near the intersection of 31st and Gillham anytime soon. There just isn't enough population density there now. Those chains would be more likely to wait and build in a new building around Crown Center. The population inside the Loop barely can support the CVS at 10th and Main, and there are a lot more people living within walking distance there. Just a few short years ago, the City had to practically beg CVS not to close.

The retail landscape is much different than in years past. Many of the types of businesses that used to fill larger retail spaces in commercial nodes have gone away: video rental stores, bookstores, music stores, computer and electronic stores, office supply stores. Long-term retail even struggles to stay open in well-established neighborhoods.

The focus should be on creating as much dense housing as possible. The new structures being planned and built need to prioritize residential, and it's perfectly okay to have buildings without any retail in them.

I disagree. I think this is one of the most under served areas for retail by population density. If you look at all the Mac Properties apartments, Union Hill, Longfellow, North Hyde Park, Beacon Hill, plus the work population at Hosptial Hill, there are a lot of people with relatively few quality retail options in that area.

One problem with redeveloping the nearby retail buildings is obtaining them. Superior Linen owns a huge chuck of the potential retail buildings, and I don't think they have plans of selling them any time soon.

Another potential problem is city parking requirements. I heard the main reason that the Attitude restaurant has been delayed for so long is related to parking requirements from the city. Many of these spots have little to no dedicated parking.

I think it may take some new retail construction to spur on renovation of the existing buildings. I think the shiny new spots with dedicated parking will attract certain businesses that wouldn't otherwise come to the area. Once (if) those businesses are proven successful, it will encourage others to follow.

Yes, there are exceptions in the example of a CVS or Walgreen's drug store in that they have certain layout requirements. However, I don't see either of those chains opening a store near the intersection of 31st and Gillham anytime soon. There just isn't enough population density there now. Those chains would be more likely to wait and build in a new building around Crown Center. The population inside the Loop barely can support the CVS at 10th and Main, and there are a lot more people living within walking distance there. Just a few short years ago, the City had to practically beg CVS not to close.

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:I disagree. I think this is one of the most under served areas for retail by population density. If you look at all the Mac Properties apartments, Union Hill, Longfellow, North Hyde Park, Beacon Hill, plus the work population at Hosptial Hill, there are a lot of people with relatively few quality retail options in that area.

...

I think it may take some new retail construction to spur on renovation of the existing buildings. I think the shiny new spots with dedicated parking will attract certain businesses that wouldn't otherwise come to the area. Once (if) those businesses are proven successful, it will encourage others to follow.

My comment about density had to do with the likelihood of opening a CVS or Walgreens around 31st and Gillham--not neighborhood retail in general. Those chains base their locations on traffic counts, population density, demographics, and spending patterns of the surrounding area--sales per sq. foot in the store. They won't open a new store if there is a chance that it will diminish patrons at their already existing stores. The fact that area residents have to drive further to reach their store is less a concern to them. Opening a new store might risk cannibalizing sales at an existing store.

Within this geographic area each store serves, population density does fluctuate. While you cite apartments along Armour Boulevard or new housing along Beacon Hill or Union Hill as justification for adding a new drug store, it doesn't mean that the mathematics have changed enough to do it. Increases in residents along Gillham are balanced out by continued depopulation just a few blocks away.

About 40 percent of all households in KCMO are single people living alone--and many of them are living in single family houses in the neighborhoods you mention. Houses that used to have four or five people living in them in past decades may have one or two now. Older neighborhoods especially see this trend since the population is aging. So for every new apartment dweller you add at 31st and Gillham, it is offset by children leaving home or a spouse dying in another part of the neighborhood.

The low cost of living in Kansas City contributes to this because many single people can afford to live in a fairly large house alone.

The only real population growth south of the river in KCMO is downtown, or in some parts of south KCMO where new housing is being built. Otherwise, many neighborhoods are depopulating due to a variety of demographic changes. This means that each drug store's geographic reach must grow outward further to reach a larger customer pool. Their cache of customers might have been 2 sq. miles around the store 10 years ago, but now it's 3 sq. miles.

The only way these chains can justify adding a new store is for population to increase dramatically within neighborhoods, and that would mainly come from from increased density. That density wouldn't come from single family houses, but apartments, condos, and townhouses built clustered together to offset the population losses in the single family homes in the general area.

The new apartments being added around Union Hill don't even make a dent compared to the population losses elsewhere in all those neighborhoods you mentioned.

Adding density that would attract a new CVS or Walgreens at 31st and Gillham is incredibly difficult because neighborhoods tend to oppose new developments that really increase density to the level necessary to maintain and attract desirable retail. Sixty-unit apartment buildings get cut down to 40-units by the time the development process is completed. Repeat this demand over and over with each development and it makes it incredibly difficult to reach that point where you are adding more people to the neighborhood than you are losing. Neighborhoods also oppose infill of duplexes and triplexes on vacant single family home lots--even though traditionally this type of zoning was allowed in the past.

Beacon Hill is probably the best example of the problem. Here we had a neighborhood of mostly cleared lots available for new development. The City could have imposed zoning that encouraged denser development patterns close to downtown. This neighborhood had the potential to be mostly redeveloped with townhomes, row houses, and apartment buildings. Instead, new single family houses are being constructed. This choice to redevelop neighborhoods simply will not increase population density to an appropriate level to support and attract a new CVS or Walgreens to the neighborhood.

This is the type of development practice and policy that would attract retail back into the City.

However, neighborhood groups and residents are not supporting development practices that will actually bring retail back to their neighborhoods. There are complaints about lack of retail and services, but they don't understand the economics of operating stores, and the sweet point of density and traffic.

If the parking ratio is the problem, just do a renovation similar to the Battery Lofts just to the north. Put on a penthouse level and gated surface parking behind the building where the new building was going to be. Not as good as the original plan, but much better than now.

I know the owner across the street and next door, they say it is dead due to inadequate parking.

what, no variance request? jesus, we are sooooo provincial.

I heard they twice asked the city for a variance and twice they were denied. They were pushing the bike parking hard and I think it would have been a great development for the city, but instead we get to keep it as vacant *Sarcasm*